BruceDLimber
Baha'i
lunamoth said:
Most interesting that you conclude this and yet continue posting here nonstop....
Bruce
Law and Sanctions
- Thread starter PrimaVera
- Start date
Most interesting that you conclude this and yet continue posting here nonstop....
Bruce
BruceDLimber
Baha'i
Re: Baha'i Laws
lunamothAre Paul's epistles authoritative for Baha'is?[/QUOTE said:
BruceDLimber
Baha'i
lunamoth said:
I would also humbly suggest that it rquires a more open and positive attitude than nonstop attack on a given religion such as the Baha'i Faith (whicih is frankly all I can remember seeing from you).
Dear Kettle,
You're black.
Love, Pot
Perhaps we can all try a friendlier approach?
Peace,
Bruce
P
Popeyesays
Guest
Re: Baha'i Laws
lunamoth said:
P
Popeyesays
Guest
Re: Baha'i Laws
Dear Luna,
When and if the time comes that the laws of the Aqdas become the law of society THEN, the Universal House of Justice would be called upon to set law into legal terms.
By the way every single place where the Aqdas mentions death as a punishment it allows for imprisonment to be given instead.
The implication here is the Universal House of Justice will turn the verses of the Aqdas into statute.
But in now wise is jurisprudence in any society regulated by Baha`i Law, and Baha`i communties must observe the law of the land in criminal matters.
As to being a perfect Baha`i - only Abdu'l Baha was a Perfect Exemplar.
The rest of us just do the best we can.
When I was in the faith for a few months my first wife and I seperated and divorced. I look back on that time as painful, but I bless the guidance of the institution I received during the time, it did not make me "perfect", but it did allow me to successfully complete a year of paztience, a civil divorce and conduct myself in a way that respected myself, my ex-spouse and the community. I could not have asked for more.
Regards,
Scott
lunamoth said:
Dear Luna,
When and if the time comes that the laws of the Aqdas become the law of society THEN, the Universal House of Justice would be called upon to set law into legal terms.
By the way every single place where the Aqdas mentions death as a punishment it allows for imprisonment to be given instead.
The implication here is the Universal House of Justice will turn the verses of the Aqdas into statute.
But in now wise is jurisprudence in any society regulated by Baha`i Law, and Baha`i communties must observe the law of the land in criminal matters.
As to being a perfect Baha`i - only Abdu'l Baha was a Perfect Exemplar.
The rest of us just do the best we can.
When I was in the faith for a few months my first wife and I seperated and divorced. I look back on that time as painful, but I bless the guidance of the institution I received during the time, it did not make me "perfect", but it did allow me to successfully complete a year of paztience, a civil divorce and conduct myself in a way that respected myself, my ex-spouse and the community. I could not have asked for more.
Regards,
Scott
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Re: Baha'i Laws
PrimaVera said:
lunamoth
Episcopalian
BruceDLimber said:
Yes, the idea that each up to and including the UHJ is infallible. If one rejects any of it they must reject all of it.
luna
lunamoth
Episcopalian
BruceDLimber said:
Just call me a fool.
I'm doing you a favor, Bruce. You've been spoiling for the clash of ideas in every post with your "just the facts" and in your face style. I've relented and given you one.
lunamoth
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Re: Baha'i Laws
Convenient that you may reject anything that does not support your beliefs.
lunamoth
BruceDLimber said:
Convenient that you may reject anything that does not support your beliefs.
lunamoth
lunamoth
Episcopalian
BruceDLimber said:I would also humbly suggest that it rquires a more open and positive attitude than nonstop attack on a given religion such as the Baha'i Faith (whicih is frankly all I can remember seeing from you).
Dear Kettle,
You're black.
Love, Pot
Perhaps we can all try a friendlier approach?
Peace,
Bruce
I have tried to engage Baha'is in more neutral and friendly discussions before, with some pleasant success, in the past. Sometimes I was just ignored, but hey that was OK by me, sometimes I was just cut off. I guess you must have just ignored my friendlier attempts. It has just been in the past few months in response to the more aggressive proselytizing by some of the Baha'i members here that I have started not to push, but to push back.
But you are right.
It's time to cool it.
lunamoth
![sara[h]ng](/community/data/avatars/m/2/2548.jpg?1425214557){kind=avatar}
I don't really understand the controversy with this. As with any group, the Baha'i Faith has the right to set it's own rules and see that the members of the group follow them. If someone does not like the rules it is their business, and their right and their obligation to leave said group. I understand that you have done this, Luna, and that's fine.
The Faith, again as with any group, has the right and obligation to insure, that if members of the group will not follow the group's rules, that the members leave.
You've made your beliefs known, both by leaving the Faith and by continued argument with the Baha'is here. You have your beliefs, they have theirs, and both need to be respected. There's no good reason to be upset about this.
- Sarah
The Faith, again as with any group, has the right and obligation to insure, that if members of the group will not follow the group's rules, that the members leave.
You've made your beliefs known, both by leaving the Faith and by continued argument with the Baha'is here. You have your beliefs, they have theirs, and both need to be respected. There's no good reason to be upset about this.
- Sarah
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Re: Baha'i Laws
Popeyesays said:
BruceDLimber
Baha'i
lunamoth said:Just call me a fool.
Far be it from me to judge.
lunamoth said:
That's what they told the tomcat before his operation.
lunamoth said:
Not really, no: I hugely prefer dialogue!
And if you don't like my font, you're most welcome to suggest I change it.
Peace,
Bruce
lunamoth
Episcopalian
sara[h]ng said:
Hi Sara[h]ng, pleased to meet you.
You are right. You make several of the same points I've made here and in the other thread. Respect is a two-way street, as is dialogue.
Apologies for creating such a disharmonious thread. I am not usually this shrill, using Scott's word, which you might see if you peruse elsewhere in the fora. This actually is a situation that, for me, has been building over the past few months. The eruption of the ego is not pretty, but what can I say, I'm human.
peace,
lunamoth
BruceDLimber
Baha'i
So let's put our money where our mouths are (so to speak) and continue with friendly conversation, then!
"Less talk and more action" all 'round, as it were . . .
Peace,
Bruce
"Less talk and more action" all 'round, as it were . . .
Peace,
Bruce
arthra
Baha'i
Lunamoth wrote:
I was living quite peacefully here at CR until a barage of Baha'i showed up to Blazen the Name of Baha'u'llah, telling everyone that they understand everyone else's religion better, that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma. It is proselytization, pure and simple. It may be presented in a gentle, obtuse manner, but it is clearly proselytization of the Baha'i Faith.
My comment:
Well I have noticed Luna moth that there's some hostility here but quite frankly I don't see Baha'is (or the "barage of Baha'is") doing what you suggest:
"that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma."
We had a topic on the principle of non-partisanship which got warped into "Baha'is and politics" and then which splintered off into any number of topics which well seemed to be presented and posed with somewhat of an "edge".
I really don't think Baha'is here are going around saying your religion is wrong...
It seems we are having difficulty discussing Baha'i topics on this Baha'i subject area without being accused of proselytizing. Why is that?
- Art
I was living quite peacefully here at CR until a barage of Baha'i showed up to Blazen the Name of Baha'u'llah, telling everyone that they understand everyone else's religion better, that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma. It is proselytization, pure and simple. It may be presented in a gentle, obtuse manner, but it is clearly proselytization of the Baha'i Faith.
My comment:
Well I have noticed Luna moth that there's some hostility here but quite frankly I don't see Baha'is (or the "barage of Baha'is") doing what you suggest:
"that we all have our own religions wrong, we're all "inside a box", thousands of years of wisdom are written off as useless, problematic man-made dogma."
We had a topic on the principle of non-partisanship which got warped into "Baha'is and politics" and then which splintered off into any number of topics which well seemed to be presented and posed with somewhat of an "edge".
I really don't think Baha'is here are going around saying your religion is wrong...
It seems we are having difficulty discussing Baha'i topics on this Baha'i subject area without being accused of proselytizing. Why is that?
- Art
lunamoth
Episcopalian
arthra said:
Well, Art, I actually do not consider anything here in the Baha'i Forum as proselytizing. This is what this forum is meant for. I am referring to a pattern of posts throughout the rest of the boards, noticed by more than just myself.
I am a member of Planet Baha'i and you know we've interacted on another forum as well, typically pleasant in my opinion. However, I've also seen posts by you and another member here discussing the fruitfullness and difficulties of teaching the Baha'i Faith on this and the other interfaith discussion board.
As for keeping threads on topic, I've noticed that whenever the derailment is friendly, positive toward the BF you don't say a word, but if it is critical, you feel compelled to point it out.
yours,
lunamoth
smkolins
Bahá'í
I think many people have sincere intentions on saying things close to their heart, but with no little talking past eachother, not infrequently hearing not eachother but echoes of every other time we dwelt on the issues and or heard others say things. I"ll be generous to assume I've been party to the problem even as I'm equally sure we've tried to free ourselves of the problem.
Despite who brings up the details of the problem, I do feel there is a repeated problem but haven't found the words to express it. Perhaps we are close to a resolution - darkest before the storm and all that. My own version of the idea is that one spends about as much time getting into a problem as out of it, and the stage where one becomes aware of the problem, even before doing anything about it, does not come at the begining of the solution but somewher midway or so.
For the fundamentalism to me is not in having quotes, but in assuming that one knows what they mean and can have no need to delve for meaning oneself but simply to use more words tell another what they obviously mean. On occasion I have seasoned conversations in various threads with quotes but most often because of a "that reminds me of" kinds of feeling - and out of respect for the scripture which I feel has a status beyond anything I have to say but still wish to understand.
Despite who brings up the details of the problem, I do feel there is a repeated problem but haven't found the words to express it. Perhaps we are close to a resolution - darkest before the storm and all that. My own version of the idea is that one spends about as much time getting into a problem as out of it, and the stage where one becomes aware of the problem, even before doing anything about it, does not come at the begining of the solution but somewher midway or so.
For the fundamentalism to me is not in having quotes, but in assuming that one knows what they mean and can have no need to delve for meaning oneself but simply to use more words tell another what they obviously mean. On occasion I have seasoned conversations in various threads with quotes but most often because of a "that reminds me of" kinds of feeling - and out of respect for the scripture which I feel has a status beyond anything I have to say but still wish to understand.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
smkolins said:
A nice post, Steven. I agree.
lunamoth
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Re: Baha'i Laws
Dear Scott,
Yes, those passages from Paul are amazing, and even though I don't usually read the KJV, they are even more majestic and beautiful in that translation.
You've established that essentially there is no difference between these Christian teachings and the Baha'i teachings.
My reading of Paul is that we are no longer under the penalty of law, any law. No longer under penalty, but under the Spirit which is Love, love God and love each other. It does not make sense to me Christ freed us from bondage to law and then would return to bring a whole new bunch of very detailed (down to the minutia in some cases) laws.
Do I think those laws no longer serve a purpose? Of course they do! They are guidelines for conduct that will bring us true joy. Laws mean we are still babies. I think it is interesting that Baha'ullah only revealed the Aqdas at the end of His life, and (Kitab-i-Hearsay) that it was only becasue the friends insisted. Reminds me of the Israelites asking for a King. Do I believe in keeping people safe from others who would prey upon the innocent and do harm? Of course! But, once you get the idea of Love, really get it, have the Spirit within, the law is irrelevant.
The fruits of the Spirit flow out--you don't cram them in by law. Observance of the law then is your Christ nature, which is your true nature.
peace,
lunamoth
Popeyesays said:
Dear Scott,
Yes, those passages from Paul are amazing, and even though I don't usually read the KJV, they are even more majestic and beautiful in that translation.
You've established that essentially there is no difference between these Christian teachings and the Baha'i teachings.
My reading of Paul is that we are no longer under the penalty of law, any law. No longer under penalty, but under the Spirit which is Love, love God and love each other. It does not make sense to me Christ freed us from bondage to law and then would return to bring a whole new bunch of very detailed (down to the minutia in some cases) laws.
Do I think those laws no longer serve a purpose? Of course they do! They are guidelines for conduct that will bring us true joy. Laws mean we are still babies. I think it is interesting that Baha'ullah only revealed the Aqdas at the end of His life, and (Kitab-i-Hearsay) that it was only becasue the friends insisted. Reminds me of the Israelites asking for a King. Do I believe in keeping people safe from others who would prey upon the innocent and do harm? Of course! But, once you get the idea of Love, really get it, have the Spirit within, the law is irrelevant.
The fruits of the Spirit flow out--you don't cram them in by law. Observance of the law then is your Christ nature, which is your true nature.
peace,
lunamoth